All 12 Member Countries Sign Off On the TPP (freezenet.ca) 186
Dangerous_Minds writes: News is surfacing that the TPP has officially been signed by all 12 member countries. This marks the beginning of the final step towards ratification. Freezenet has a quick rundown of what copyright provisions are contained in the agreement, including traffic shaping, site blocking, enforcement of copyright when infringement is "imminent," and a government mandate for ISPs to install backdoors for the purpose of tracking copyright infringement on the Internet.
It's official, you all live in a Dictatorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Now any corporation can sure your country, but you can't vote on the selling out of your rights to foreign corporations.
Are you happy yet?
Days like this I wish I'd never helped create the Internet or the tools you use, or let it escape from academia.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, sorry, I mispelled sue.
Re: (Score:3)
You also jumped the gun quite a bit. Now the respective countries governments have to review what the selected corporate representatives from each country agreed to and either accept it or reject it, no changes allowed. Pretty much solid indication is, it is going to be rejected and collapse, at which time the lobbying from corporations and the threats from the US government will start.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm one of the one percent, and have voted direct shares. But most of you aren't. You're serfs.
(thinks)
No, serfs have rights. At best you're indentured servants.
Re:It's official, you all live in a Dictatorship (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't kick puppies, I even walk gingerly around them. After I steal the baby's candy, I give it back. I may take their pacifier and hide it for my own amusement but that's because I'm evil. I give that back too. I've never run over a nun. I've never burned down an orphanage. I've never even cheated on my taxes. I've never pushed an old lady out of the way - my home is up in Maine now and they're particularly stout. I don't cut people off in traffic. I'm not more important than you - I'm not better than you either. I've never once shut down a factory and sent everyone home without pay - nor do I pay anyone or reward anyone who does. I only get one vote and nobody has ever told me that my vote is more important than your vote and, if they did, you'd probably enjoy living in my country as I'm mostly sane. I've never torched a cat, a cow, or even stuck a firecracker in a frog's butt. I never bullied anyone. I'd say I'd never hurt anyone but that'd be a lie. I not only got my degree, I served my country to afford it. I do own a BMW (a couple, actually) but I've never run anyone off the road. I put my pants on one leg at a time - I don't even have a tailor or a butler. I do, technically, have a housekeeper and sometimes she lets me pretend to be the boss. I have a dog and he farts just like your dog. I use the same 'net and the same hardware you use. You probably are using a faster computer (at least video card) than I am. I have a cute girlfriend but she's not a supermodel and she wears jeans and a sweatshirt. She has a purse, it was under $100 from LL Bean and is more like a satchel. I think my credit cards have a limit but I don't know what they are - I don't use them. I don't want to eat your baby, even with salt. I've never once been mean to your mother and I'm sure she's a nice lady. I've never had knowing contact with aliens. I have no idea how to buy a law, or a senator. I don't shop at Walmart but I've been in one. You have a bigger television than I do. You probably have a better stereo than I do. I don't steal. I'm willing to do manual labor. I didn't sacrifice a chicken or even a goat to get to where I am - I just got lucky as all hell. I swear, I smoke cigars, and I don't think I've taken a shower yet today. I didn't burn down a church. I've never taken your retirement fund - none of the people I know personally have done that either. Most of the people I know and associate with are not wealthy, they're fairly average and middle class. I drive my own cars - and wouldn't have it any other way. I use the same software others use - nobody makes me special software unless I pay them or do it myself.
Do me a favour? Buy a new domain called theonepercent.com (or something, haven't even checked that one) and just put up a single page with that text in a slightly more readable form. It'd be useful to link to people :)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I guess. I'll give it a bookmark and see what I can come up with over the weekend. If you want, you can reply and let me know and I'll link you to it when it's ready. I'm sure I can find an appropriate site name and hosting is damned near free. Hell, if I get really bored - I'll see if I can do it (with a TLD) and not pay a nickel for it - just to make 'em think a bit more. I imagine that I can do that.
I did have a picture of me (complete with my face!) during the OWS Festival. I was holding a sign that sai
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, share a link.
A contact/feedback form wouldn't hurt - think about whether you want to engage with people that would use it, or whether it's just a way for them to share thoughts one-way.
But I'd suggest keeping it anonymous, from the domain registration up. As you did on Slashdot, it'd challenge the preconceptions about the 1% rather than be an ego thing.
Re: (Score:2)
>I think my favorite was someone claiming that they had huge college debt, was owed a "well paying job," was owed a refund for their college debt, and that "big business" was to blame. The journalist asked what they majored in and this girl looks at the camera with a proud face and spouts out some arts major or humanities major. I don't recall what it was specifically but I burst out laughing when I watched the clip.
I remember a good buddy of mine from college that I took engineering classes with. (Years
Re: (Score:2)
That is confusing BUT it's okay - so long as they don't feel like they don't have to accept the consequences of their actions. Maybe your buddy was happier with his major and his job? Maybe he wanted to study something new? I get that and I accept it. Hell, I even think it's important. What I don't think is that our economy is designed to employ them and that they made choices and must accept the consequences of those choices. 'Snot like I'm asking a whole lot here.
I think the difference, perhaps, might hav
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not among the 1%, but there are several stocks that I directly own, and have voted. It really doesn't matter.
The Board is going to decide how the shareholders' votes go. A very large amount of stock is held by institutional investors, who are almost certain to vote as the Board recommends. (After all, there's a lot of interlocking stock ownership going on, and as long as everybody at high levels votes the Boards' way in all companies everybody who matters will get along just fine, right?)
As a sm
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a treaty, so nothing in it has the force of law.
If someone can't sue now, they can't sue even after Obama signs it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a treaty, so nothing in it has the force of law.
It *IS* a treaty. An international agreement is a treaty, by definition. That's what treaty means.
However, it is only a legal treaty in the U.S. if it gets ratified by Congress. And we'd better hope that's not the case.
Further yet, there's the issue of whether a treaty can override internal U.S. laws. My money is on NO.
Re: (Score:2)
A treaty supersedes all of the laws of the land, which is why it requires Congress to sign off on it, instead of a President's signature.
False. The Constitution is vague on the issue, saying that both treaties and the Constitution are "the law of the land". However, it's pretty clear that the Constitution only intended for treaties to deal with issues external to the United States (such as foreign trade).
In its only (to my knowledge) ruling which dealt with this issue, in regard to internal U.S. affairs, Reid v. Covert [wikipedia.org], SCOTUS ruled that the U.S. Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
The actual "sup
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called an oligarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
Days like this I wish I'd never helped create the Internet or the tools you use, or let it escape from academia.
Cheer up, it's not the tools that are broken. It's greed. Avarice, one of the deadly sins, is wholly responsible for this abominable legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
> Getting fresh air and spending time with loved ones is still free.
What fresh air?
The corporate sovereignty provisions of the TPP have much wider implications than you seem to be willing to acknowledge.
Frist! (Score:3, Funny)
Don't forget, we're putting covers on our TPP reports before we send them out now.
Selling our sovereignty to corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
Why else would they be permitted to sue countries/governments over alleged threats to their 'perceived potential profits' due to new laws (such as environment protections laws that might forbid those companies from operating under these new laws) passed by said countries.
Re:Selling our sovereignty to corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what "trade" means these days, didn't you get the memo?
This whole TPP is basically the foundation of an international corporate bill of rights, which places the demands of corporations into law around the world.
Pushed by the US government, who are conveniently on the payroll and dedicated to advancing those corporate interests.
This "treaty" is pretty much the global oligarchy tightening the noose. Entrenching copyright, imaginary property, and making sure to be able to fight governments ability to pass laws is the entire fucking point.
Citizens? This isn't to benefit us ... unless you mean corporate citizens.
Re:Selling our sovereignty to corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or this [www.cbc.ca], which is Jim Balsillie (one of the BlackBerry co-founder who is a billionaire) spelling out why this treaty is a terrible idea (for Canada at least).
The TPP is selling the fucking farm for some magic beans. It's basically the US allowing corporations to set international policy for their own benefit.
This is only beneficial to the corporations who paid for it, and the politicians and lobbyists on the payroll to fucking deliver it. It offers pretty much no benefit to the citizens of those countries
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does enriching corporations with my money not have anything to do with "trade?" It seems to have a bit too much to do with trade if you ask me!
We have a lot of people opposing this, but if the signal/noise isn't favorable it might not help. We have to get enough rational people not only to oppose the rational paid supporters on the other side, but also to counter-act the irrational nutcases who make us look bad.
Signed, not Ratified... (Score:5, Informative)
It hasn't been ratified though. There are significant benefits to being an original signatory on any international treaty, and every member country is afraid of being left in the dust if they don't. There are provisions requiring signatories to ratify certain provisions, but it has not been ratified yet, only signed, and there is a big difference.
The TPP might actually be a net financial gain for the United States - unfortunately, at the expense of other countries involved. A number of provisions in it give an unfair advantage to the US, because they have demanded that these provisions be put in.
Michael Geist is doing a very good review of all the problems with the TPP, and has been posting daily [michaelgeist.ca] about it for about a month now. It's a rather Canadian perspective on it, but a good read nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
The TPP might actually be a net financial gain for the United States
Even many who are opposed agree with that statement. The thing is, it also might not. ;) So, not really good financial planning. "You know, this deal doesn't look too bad; you might not even lose your shirt! It is possible you would come out ahead."
Re: (Score:2)
The TPP might actually be a net financial gain for the United States - unfortunately, at the expense of other countries involved.
The current pie in the sky all, all lights are green projections from an administration desperate to push this is 0.6% growth. That's the best they could muster when fudging all the numbers in a favorable direction. The US will most assuredly lose on this just like every other first world country. This is NAFTA all over again. My only fond thought is that at some point citizens will get fed up enough to revolt. Vote Bernie or Trump if you want to end these "Free Trade" agreements. Vote Hillary or
Re:Signed, not Ratified... (Score:5, Insightful)
...at the cost of a net civil rights loss for United States Citizens. And that's the fucking problem! The whole goddamn thing is an omnibus bill of all the freedom-destroying shit the oligarchs and lobbyists can't jam through Congress halfway-legitimately.
Re: (Score:2)
You are counting the United States as if it were one unified entity. I'm sure it would benefit some parties who normally live in the United States. It would damage a much larger number of citizens. Possibly there would be a net combined monetary gain, but there would not be a net marginal gain. A dollar is worth a lot more to someone barely getting by that it is to someone extremely wealthy.
The TPP is an ongoing disaster, and anybody who supports it should be considered a traitor to his/her country. An
Trans-Pacific Partnership (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Whenever using an abbreviation or acronym that isn't universal, spell it out the first time you use it. And TPP is certainly not an universal abbreviation. The use here isn't even the most common one.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] for a reason why saying TPP without qualifying it is a bad idea, especially on a nerd site.
Re: (Score:1)
Which has nothing to do with the ability for the submitter or editor to have written the words, "Trans Pacific Partnership," instead of, "TPP," in the summary. Like regular journalists, or any user of the English language, ought to do.
ISDS (Score:5, Informative)
Investor-state dispute settlements here we come
According to The Nation's interpretation of leaked documents in 2012, countries would be required to conform their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP Agreement, which includes provisions on government spending in certain areas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Investor.E2.80.93state_arbitration_.28ISDS.29
Welcome to shadowrun chummer
Re: ISDS (Score:1)
Awesome! I'm gonna choose my class... umm, why is the only option "Slum Dweller"?
+ job losses everywhere (Score:4, Informative)
The latest economics study on the TPP suggests it will "cause some job losses and exacerbate income inequality in each of the dozen participating nations, but especially in the largest — the United States"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/business/international/economists-sharply-split-over-trade-deal-effects.html
Re: (Score:3)
All Your Copyrights Are Belong To Us! (Score:3)
Just give in to the Hollywood studios, world. It's BLISSS.
Finally (Score:1)
I can start respecting copyright at the same level as the average Chinese person does
With utter contempt
Re: (Score:2)
Iirc 90% of all windows computers running in china are non-genuine.
Re: (Score:1)
And they prefer that compared to 15% more as genuine and the other 75% as Apple or Linux.
Oh please let it pass. (Score:5, Interesting)
According to Michael Geist [michaelgeist.ca], TPP requires implementation of a DMCA-style take-down notice system, while eliminating the good faith belief requirement. Oh please oh please let it pass. YouTube? I'm sorry, it infringes. All of it. Vevo? Infringing. Take it down. Redtube? Infringing. Take it down. If TPP is implemented, it is our duty to see to it that no automated take-down system in any of the 12 countries will work anymore. And it will be legal.
Finally all those spam botnets will have a productive use.
Re: (Score:1)
Why stop at the streaming services? How about every newspaper, every movie studios home page, also Netflix. (Is it limited to web pages or can I file a take-down notice to a Cinema?)
Re: (Score:2)
Redtube? Infringing. Take it down.
You sold me. How do I stop this?
Re: (Score:1)
How do I stop this?
You're gonna need a five gallon pail of marmalade, three spoons from a virgin's kitchen, a shotgun, and a yak. When you acquire those things, let me know and I'll tell you the next step.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm going to operate under the assumption that you own duck tape. If you don't own duck tape, you probably shouldn't be here. Next, you need to give all (other) donations to a favored charity - except for exactly 14.5" of duck tape and the ones from the post above that you've accumulated for this task.
You won't need clothing or a baseball card collection where you're going.
allow âoedestructionâ orders.... (Score:2)
What if the thing that is enabling circumvention is the fact that somebody is smart? Do they destroy every programmable product that person owns, or do they destroy the person?
Re:allow 'destruction' orders.... (Score:2)
What if the thing that is enabling circumvention is the fact that somebody is smart? Do they destroy every programmable product that person owns, or do they destroy the person?
Well, people have been asking for it, and now, here it is, the Corporate Death Penalty! Coming soon to a city-state near you. We can eliminate threats to Intellectual Property and not tie up the local court systems. We can handle these recalcitrant individuals ourselves. We will have justice for our IP, it has rights, you know, it says so in the TPP. . .
Wait, what!? You wanted the ability to use it on Corporations? Citizen, no! These institutions are the job creators. Destroying them would be hazar
The Age of Cyberpunk with its Corporate Socialism (Score:3)
We're headed deaper into the world of cyberpunk once more with all its hallmarks, including corporate socialism (corporates reap gain, citziens/taxpayers pay loss). TPP is just another step along the way. ... I wonder when there will be a counter movement. ... Right now everyone get's bored when I try to explain software and algorithm patents to them.Or they simply believe it doesn't exist.
Whatever happens, I want a cyberdeck and Kanedas bike from Akira. ... And a tank with a few clones of me so I don't grow old. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
I am a bit of a student of history. I am not, by trade, a historian. However, it is my observation that the pendulum swings in (at least) two directions. The further it swings in any direction, the further it swings back.
So, if history is any indication as to social, political, or economic events, and I think it is, there will be a backlash and it probably won't be pretty. It's quite likely that it will take some years and some push but the people will fight back eventually.
If you knock someone down in the
Re: (Score:2)
Hi KGill. :-)
Some of the things I'm seeing: .bit exist
- Google and Apple, Facebook/Whatsapp not yet cooperating with getting rid of encryption
- lots of open source encryption tools
- slowly but surely we are seeing some more open source hardware projects
- Bitcoin and the follow altcoins exist - some even have some coinjoin system (anonymity)
- OpenBazaar exists (not full anonymity yet) - open trade, no borders
- decentralized DNS with
So at least some of the tools are in place...
Re: (Score:2)
Hello there, Lennie.
You raise some interesting points. All quite true for those - which does overlap in other areas. So, maybe? At least I think I get what you're saying. This might be a bit long but I'll do my best to be concise and articulate.
If you don't mind, and treat these as rhetorical in all or in part if you prefer - though I do welcome a reply, if I ask a question or two?
Do we, as a citizenry, have enough impetus to act?
Will we, in viable numbers, actually act and make changes to our own habits?
Ha
Re: (Score:2)
Insomniac ? I hope you don't have that regularly, if so I suggest you do something about that. Less caffeine and less stress ?
OK, I'll be the first to admit it. I'm no expert, I suggest you talk to one.
I'm also not completely sane at this moment, this is the morning after a night on the town, their is still a lot of alcohol in my body. ;-)
Anyway, about the topic at hand...
Yes, I do think about it like a pendulum as well and about how far it can or will be pushed in one way (maybe even multiple pendulums). I
WTF is TPP? (Score:2)
Editorial fail.
But Good for Austrailian Farmers (Score:2)
Who will now be able to sell dozens and dozens of Kg of sugar to the US, provided it does not compete with US farmers...
Re: (Score:3)
But has it passed Congress yet?
Re:The Republicans are destroying our lives (Score:5, Insightful)
No, only Malaysia has ratified.
It is a silly headline. The 12 countries that agreed to have their negotiators, whose only authority is to negotiate the text, sign what they negotiated. This is not an approval step in any of these countries, or intended to be. It is just a signing ceremony. The news was months ago when they agreed to a text; countries that didn't agree then were not on the list they're using here. They make it sound like all the countries that negotiated signed. Not true at all. The countries that came to a deal, signed the deal as the first step towards referring it to their respective national processes.
Republicans in the US House have suggested that the only chance they'll have enough votes is if they pass it during the "lame duck" session after this year's Nov election. I agree that is their one chance, but I think they might have a hard time selling it to voters this year and if it is a major election issue then it won't pass the Senate. Elected Republicans mostly like it, but most Republican voters don't.
Re: (Score:3)
No, Congress gave the President "fast-track trade promotion authority" which allows the President improved power to negotiate because it ties Congress' hands so that they can only ratify or reject a trade agreement; they can't modify it, and in the Senate they can't filibuster. They still have to vote "yes" for it to be ratified. ;)
Congress improved the likelihood of passing a trade agreement in general by preventing themselves from getting in the way with parliamentary procedure. As somebody who dislikes t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This time they're arm and arm together screwing us.
Nope. Most Democrats oppose the TPP because the unions oppose it. Many Republicans oppose it because Obama is for it. It will not pass, or even be voted on, until after the election. If Bernie wins, TPP is dead. If Hillary wins, it may be dead because Bernie has forced her to take a stand against it. If Trump wins, it is likely dead. If an establishment Republican wins, it will have a good chance of being ratified.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately Congress already preapproved it. They don't need to vote on it again. Let that sink in... The Republicans preapproved a deal by Obama, before it was even done, and before reading any text from it. This is how much money is involved and how corrupt it is.
Re: (Score:2)
And they only did it that way so they could like they opposed it later.
Re: (Score:3)
>> If Hillary wins, it may be dead because Bernie has forced her to take a stand against it.
You must be new here. Nothing pivots like a Clinton in office.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing pivots like a Clinton in office.
Hakeem Olajuwon? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Republicans rule all three branches of our government so that doesn't matter.
Correct. President Obama is what we would have describe as a Republican President until this century.
Re: (Score:3)
You are a special kind of troll that we should all cherish.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans rule all three branches of our government so that doesn't matter.
So, and? Looks like people who can vote need to learn a lesson, just a question how long it takes and what gets destroyed in the meantime.
Can't milk a hungry cow and the Elysium implementations possible now still are on this planets surface. Not the first time a population gets decimated by some cause - climate change (ice age 70 k years ago), overuse in connection with lack of knowledge etc. Maya sure may not had the knowledge which is available now:
http://science.nasa.gov/scienc... [nasa.gov]
"We modeled the worst a
Re:The Republicans are destroying our lives (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because an international agreement negotiated by a Democratic administration is some hope to be blamed on the Republican party.
Pull your head out of your ass. The Establishment is the problem, If you are remotely considering voting for HRC or Rubio, THIS IS YOUR FAULT.
Vote Sanders, or Vote Cruz as you like but do not allow HRC or Rubio to get nominated!
Re:The Republicans are destroying our lives (Score:5, Insightful)
^^This, a million fucking times this!
Corporatism knows no party, and cares for none but one driving ideology: profit.
The sooner you partisan asshats get that through your skulls, the better off we'll all be.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're just shouting, without checking the positions. What if it really is a partisan issue, and Obama is the only high profile Democrat supporting it? Then what?
Clinton and Sanders are both against the TPP. Not sure why you're spewing anti-Hillary stuff here. Trump is also opposed. Rubio says he is undecided.
Cruz supports the TPP, but doesn't think that Congress should vote in a lame duck session.
Even counting withdrawn Democratic candidates, you'll find that Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb both opposed it.
Pr
Re:The Republicans are destroying our lives (Score:5, Informative)
Cruz does not support TPP. He does support TPA. Get your facts straight.
Re: (Score:2)
I did get my facts straight. He did a bunch of work promoting the TPP, and the TPA last year.
He obfuscated his TPA support by voting yes to stop debate and override the filibuster, but then he let it pass without even voting, so he could mask his support since. That is the facts of his record on this, he talks out both sides of his mouth, but he does support it.
If he wants to change his opinion, it takes more than saying so at a campaign stop in Iowa during a contentious primary. He needs to do like he did
Re: (Score:2)
Goldman Sachs? Are you serious? It's not like he was paid (bribed) $675,000 for three speeches to GS. How many former GS executive have worked for the Obama Administration? You can't complain now, if you didn't complain before.
Re: The Republicans are destroying our lives (Score:5, Informative)
Hillary being "against" it is hilarious because you have to remember that this thing has been going on long enough that she literally was involved in negotiating it. Her hands are already all over the TPP. The only reason she's "against" it is because Bernie is against it. Once Bernie loses the nomination (and he will, democracy doesn't mean shit to the DNC), she'll forget all about being "against" the TPP.
Re: (Score:2)
being involved in negotiating doesn't give you much control over its contents. There's only so much one person can do when there are this many parties involved.
Re: (Score:2)
So who does have control over it's contents? You've just eliminated both the people that did have control and the people that didn't. Good luck with that argument.
Re: The Republicans are destroying our lives (Score:3)
Have you never tried to do any sort of group project (college comes to mind for me) where you have no way (or authority) to fix everyone else's stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
I have done plenty of group projects. It works best when you reasonably present good ideas, work with others, and show respect. We all encounter stupid people in our lives. That is normal. If everyone you meet is stupid, then chances are you're the stupid one.
Again, if the people negotiating weren't responsible for it's contents, and the people not negotiating can't be responsible, then who is responsible for it's contents?
Re: (Score:2)
It works best when you reasonably present good ideas, work with others, and show respect.
And you can only control yourself. Not the other people in the group.
Again, if the people negotiating weren't responsible for it's contents
I never said that. I said that a dissenting person can't be held responsible for contents that they didn't agree to- what could they have done about it? Some of the other people negotiating are responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
She wasn't even a dissenting member, she was never even a trade negotiator, and wasn't working for the government at the late stage when the compromises were being worked out.
She said it was going to be great before it was negotiated, when she worked for the government. Then they negotiated it, and by then she didn't work for the government. She got the details recently, same as the rest of us, and she has opposed it since the first real details were leaking out early last year.
I'm not sure what his angle i
Re: (Score:2)
So, surely you recognize that somebody who wasn't involved in the negotiations at all, but worked for one of the parties in the negotiations when the negotiations had started, but had not worked for that organization for a few years when the agreement was made would not know anything at all about it.
At least certainly less than any of the people who had ever been in the room... ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I lot of these guys would rather have a Rubio than Sanders.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to look up the word "literally." It literally does not mean what you say here.
Re:The Republicans are destroying our lives (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton was in favor of the TPP until recently when she realized she has to be against it to win the primary. There's every reason to think she'd be for it again if elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton was undecided, when she was Secretary of State it was her job to support whatever trade deals her boss, the President, was having negotiated. The deal was not yet actually negotiated though. Secretary of State is a diplomatic role, not a political role; they are not even supposed to be providing their opinions, they provide the official US Government opinions, because they're not elected they're appointed.
Post Secretary of State, when she is giving her own opinions, she started out undecided but hop
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I vote for Cave Johnson, with Lemons for VP.
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful. VP Lemons might burn down your house.
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA/MPAA actually become a mafia entity with enforcers ...
Oh, so it's historical sci-fi then?
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's enough blame to go around, so I'm being bipartisan. The Democrats cannot pass this without a lot of Republican help, and I'm going to blame everyone involved.
NOTE TO MODERATORS (Score:4, Insightful)
Moderators, please note that many of the comments in this thread are a troll replying to himself to make it appear like a conversation. It's one jackass who posts this type of spam on a regular basis, replying to himself as AC. And, of course, he never says anything of substance, just one line nonsense.
Here's one example: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8657315&cid=51359929 [slashdot.org] (posting about how Republicans want people to die)
Another example: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8685139cid=51400945 [slashdot.org] (making BS claims about Facebook tolerating and promoting gun violence)
Yet another: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8700601&cid=51428235 [slashdot.org] (Claiming that Republicans are always tracking and spying on everyone)
There are others. It's almost certainly one assclown who ought to be banned or at least modded into oblivion. I'm hoping the new owners get rid of some of the shit like this. I don't really mind real trolls that post on-topic stuff. Some of it's actually pretty damn funny. Even some of the old -1 logged-in posters like cyborg_monkey were entertaining. Besides, they didn't waste mod points because they were already at -1 and you could easily avoid reading them. But I'd like to see really stupid nonsense like this go away. As one user said, real trolls would either make us laugh or piss us off; this guy does neither and is just a waste.
Re:The Republicans are destroying our lives (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but Hillary was one of the authors of the TPP. And in the debate she didn't say she wouldn't support it when asked, she just waffled.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean a philosophy by which you try to live your life and help make life and death decisions with? In that case, then everything with everybody has to do with religion.
Oblivious people should never vote (Score:1)
TPP is the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" trade treaty that is a massive scam to hand the sovereignty of many nations to multinational corporations. It lets the super-rich move labor and products around tax-free while using that total mobility to escape local laws, regulations, oversight and public scrutiny. There is NOTHING in the thousands of pages to increase democratic functions, and everything that multinationals and the super-rich who have private jets and armed private security and who hang-out at Davos